Susan Sohn wrote:
> Sundar,
>
> Looking good. Just one last thing below.
Thanks Sue. I will take care of the last thing.
>
> Sundar Yamunachari wrote:
>> Sue,
>>
>>    Thanks again for review.  Accepted all the suggestions and the 
>> updated webrev is at the same place 
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ysundar/3976
>>
>> - Sundar
>>
>> Susan Sohn wrote:
>>> Sundar,
>>>
>>> A few more comments below.
>>>
>>> Sue
>>>
>>>
>>> Sundar Yamunachari wrote:
>>>> Sue,
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks for the review. See my response below. I have updated the 
>>>> webrev at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ysundar/3976/ with the changes 
>>>> based on the comments I accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sundar
>>>>
>>>> Susan Sohn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sundar Yamunachari wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Jan and Sue:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     Please review the code for bug fixes.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     The webrev is at: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ysundar/3976/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     3976 AI DHCP lease is short and not being extended
>>>>> >     http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3976
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     4070 Client booted with AI image cannot access outside the 
>>>>> subnet
>>>>> >     http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4070
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     3968 installadm does not create directory
>>>>> >     http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3968
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     3945 installadm delete-service doesn't remove the target 
>>>>> directories
>>>>> >     http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3945
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>> > Sundar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sundar,
>>>>>
>>>>> installadm.c
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> General: bug 3945 says the target directory isn't being deleted, 
>>>>> but the code changes at 566 look like it's the service that wasn't 
>>>>> being deleted?
>>>> The problem happened because, there were issues with 
>>>> remove_service_data() code. When I asked to remove one entry, it 
>>>> was corrupting everything because of the way I used strtok (see the 
>>>> change made in 1289).
>>>> The change in 566 is to make sure that the service record is 
>>>> deleted when delete-service is called
>>>>>
>>>>> 1259 - not in your changes, but should there be an error message 
>>>>> here?
>>>> If the file doesn't exists that means we don't need to remove the 
>>>> entry.
>>>
>>> So there are valid cases that remove_service_data would be called 
>>> and that file wouldn't exist? Maybe add a comment?
>>>
>>>>> 1269 - if you intended for this file to be in /var/tmp rather than 
>>>>> /var, you're missing the final "/" in "/var/tmp/". And maybe call 
>>>>> it /var/tmp/ai.<pid> or /var/tmp/installadm.<pid> ?
>>>> okay. I will change it to /var/tmp/installadm.<pid>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1281 - before you return, you need to cleanup tmp_fp and 
>>>>> associated file
>>>> okay. Actually tmp_file is a local variable and so it should not be 
>>>> freed in 1324. I will use fclose().
>>>
>>> 1281 - Don't you want fclose(tmp_fp) rather than fclose(tmp_file)?
>
> You should also remove the empty file that you created in /var/tmp.
I remove the file if there is a failure.  I have updated the webrev in 
case you want to look.

Thanks,
Sundar
>
> Other than that, I am fine with the code and don't need to see another 
> webrev.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
>>>
>>>>> 1299 - Once you get service_name and directory, why not do the 
>>>>> check on 1312? Why do you look for file and data? In other words, 
>>>>> it seems like 1299-1306 could be deleted?
>>>> Right now I am using only service_name and directory because I am 
>>>> deleting only directory now. We will be deleting boot file and 
>>>> directory corresponding to the web server after November. So I 
>>>> don't want to delete the code now.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1309 This comment needs to be rewritten to reflect what code is 
>>>>> actually doing (i.e., only writing line if it isn't a match to 
>>>>> existng service/image)
>>>> okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> setup-dhcp.sh
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> 165 - should the error message be expanded here so that if you 
>>>>> can't get the default route, you tell the user that they won't be 
>>>>> able to access outside the subnet or whatever the implications 
>>>>> would be? And/or say "continuing anyway", since you don't abort?
>>>> okay. It is kind of difficult to tell them that the client is the 
>>>> one that is affected. I will change it to "Cannot get default 
>>>> router. Please check whether default route is configured". We don't 
>>>> abort for any DHCP errors. I don't want to add "continuing anyway" 
>>>> just for this message.
>>>
>>> ok, but you have a typo: fdefault->default
>>>
>>> Sue
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sundar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sue
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


Reply via email to